The Dark Knight In Heath We Trust: A Ledgerbration: The TDK Joker Appreciation Thread

[Crook]

Denzel Washington did receive an Oscar for Glory, deservedly.

As for impressive black actors, besides Denzel, Morgan Freeman is one of the most reliable actors around period, IMO. And of course you have Sidney Poitier, Forest Whitaker, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeffrey Wright, Djimon Hounsou (underrated), Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, and Oprah Winfrey who only takes a film role once in a very great while but is excellent on the few occasions she does so.

The double-edged sword with these awards, is that once they're given to a black actor, a big deal is immediately illuminated simply because of race. When that happens, it tends to take away the achievements of the performance, and many view it as an apology or a giveaway.

The fact that two gay cowboys were the main characters was somewhat groundbreaking. That's about it to me, really. Otherwise, I don't think it did much to put an end to stereotyping, nor did it really open peoples' eyes to the gay community. The critical reception doesn't really persuade me one way or another; "Iron Man" is the best reviewed movie of the year, but that hasn't revolutionized public opinion of weapons contractors...

That's a horrid example. Iron Man did what it could to put a little bit of depth, but it was otherwise a summer flick. Brokeback Mountain handled so much more intricacies that I'm sure you're already aware of.

As for the stereotype, I'm gonna have to disagree. Considering the setting of the entire film, where exactly did they unintentionally go wrong with depicting 2 male lovers?

Agreed.

And as I've said, I can't help but feel that Jack Twist came off as a "sexual predator." His whole character bothered me in that regard. That truly bothered me when I saw it in the theater, and shortly thereafter Gene Shalit came out with that characterization and was publicly ridiculed for it. All the while, I didn't see what the big deal was. It was a spot-on description of the character. So I knew from my first viewing that that aspect of Twist's character wouldn't go over real well with a mainstream audience.

Sexual predator? In what way? Because he was adamant for Ennis' love? Have you seen, I don't know......every other romantic film ever made?

There almost always is a conflicting struggle to reconcile one's feelings for the other. That's not exclusive to gay or straight people. That's just plain human emotion.

 

[The Senator]

That's a horrid example. Iron Man did what it could to put a little bit of depth, but it was otherwise a summer flick. Brokeback Mountain handled so much more intricacies that I'm sure you're already aware of.

I didn't really use a good example. But really, my point is that critical reception has nothing to do with the how groundbreaking a film is, or how it is received by every day Americans.

As for the stereotype, I'm gonna have to disagree. Considering the setting of the entire film, where exactly did they unintentionally go wrong with depicting 2 male lovers?

I was referring to the whole "gay cowboy" theme, and the depressing nature of the film itself. Ennis concealed his homosexuality because he was afraid of being killed for it. Jack Twist wanted to live happily ever after, but was killed for being gay in the end. And all the while, this took place in rural 'hick' central, at the hands of rural 'hicks'... it seemed so cliched to me. I'm not saying that 'Brokeback' was nothing but stereotypes, but there were some overarching stereotypes which I feel hindered it from being so much better than it was.

Sexual predator? In what way? Because he was adamant for Ennis' love? Have you seen, I don't know......every other romantic film ever made?

There almost always is a conflicting struggle to reconcile one's feelings for the other. That's not exclusive to gay or straight people. That's just plain human emotion.

Twist came on to Ennis during the tent scene. He basically started to force himself on to Ennis, without Ennis's permission. Had that happened in real life, and not been received as well as Ennis received it, I'm almost certain Twist's actions would qualify as sexual assault. Twist came off as a sexual predator. That whole scene unnerved me because of how Twist acted.

 

[Crook]

Not in the best actor/best actress category they weren't, not recognized by a WIN. Just a pat on the head.

Curious then, which roles did you think deserved the best actor/actress win, compared to those that did?

From the top of my head, I can already recall Glory, a film you mentioned, recognized Denzel for his supporting role.

I didn't really use a good example. But really, my point is that critical reception has nothing to do with the how groundbreaking a film is, or how it is received by every day Americans.

Nothing to do with it? I wouldn't say that at all. A film can be groundbreaking without the support of critics, sure, but generally speaking if it's bombarded with negativity because of it's execution, then the idea being groundbreaking is thrown away almost immediately.

A good reception can help validate the themes and resonance within the film community.

I was referring to the whole "gay cowboy" theme, and the depressing nature of the film itself. Ennis concealed his homosexuality because he was afraid of being killed for it. Jack Twist wanted to live happily ever after, but was killed for being gay in the end. And all the while, this took place in rural 'hick' central, at the hands of rural 'hicks'... it seemed so cliched to me. I'm not saying that 'Brokeback' was nothing but stereotypes, but there were some overarching stereotypes which I feel hindered it from being so much better than it was.

Well this was my previous point however. In the context of the film itself, in it's setting and time period, that IS the reaction towards homosexuality. Hence the whole secrecy behind it. Again, the breaking of the stereotype lies more within the handling of the lover aspect, as opposed to the titles they hold as "gay cowboys in hick county".

Twist came on to Ennis during the tent scene. He basically started to force himself on to Ennis, without Ennis's permission. Had that happened in real life, and not been received as well as Ennis received it, I'm almost certain Twist's actions would qualify as sexual assault. Twist came off as a sexual predator. That whole scene unnerved me because of how Twist acted.

The resistance was a result of Ennis' own insecurities. As we later see, he eventually embraced Twist. That's key to differentiating itself from sexual assault, the fact that Ennis did (in some form) want it. I wouldn't call it any more different than the various straight scenes in romantic movies where the guy forces a kiss upon the girl who initially resists, but gives in to the lust.

 

[The Senator]

The resistance was a result of Ennis' own insecurities. As we later see, he eventually embraced Twist. That's key to differentiating itself from sexual assault, the fact that Ennis did (in some form) want it. I wouldn't call it any more different than the various straight scenes in romantic movies where the guy forces a kiss upon the girl who initially resists, but gives in to the lust.

I respectfully disagree. This isn't so much about the eventual result of the act, or Del Mar's motives, but more about the initiation of the act itself. I was not pleased with how Twist initiated the act. It made me totally uncomfortable, and seemed to feed into some folk's opinions that many gay men are lustful, irrational people. That's the immediate impression I got, so I feel Twist and Del Mar could have initiated their romance much better than they did. And I knew I wasn't alone when Gene Shalit came out and said what I was thinking a short while later.

If Del Mar hadn't accepted Twist's advances, then that would have qualified as sexual assault. And since there was no way Twist could have known that Del Mar would accept his advances, that makes those actions predatory, in my opinion. I would say the same thing if a straight man did the same to a woman, and vice versa.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Sexual predator? In what way? Because he was adamant for Ennis' love? Have you seen, I don't know......every other romantic film ever made?

There almost always is a conflicting struggle to reconcile one's feelings for the other. That's not exclusive to gay or straight people. That's just plain human emotion.

Exactly.

Besides, he wasn't on top, shall we say. So he wasn't forcing anyone into anything.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I was referring to the whole "gay cowboy" theme, and the depressing nature of the film itself. Ennis concealed his homosexuality because he was afraid of being killed for it. Jack Twist wanted to live happily ever after, but was killed for being gay in the end. And all the while, this took place in rural 'hick' central, at the hands of rural 'hicks'... it seemed so cliched to me. I'm not saying that 'Brokeback' was nothing but stereotypes, but there were some overarching stereotypes which I feel hindered it from being so much better than it was.

Could have at least tried to use spoiler tags there rather than assuming everyone has seen this film... =P

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I respectfully disagree. This isn't so much about the eventual result of the act, or Del Mar's motives, but more about the initiation of the act itself. I was not pleased with how Twist initiated the act. It made me totally uncomfortable, and seemed to feed into some folk's opinions that many gay men are lustful, irrational people. That's the immediate impression I got, so I feel Twist and Del Mar could have initiated their romance much better than they did. And I knew I wasn't alone when Gene Shalit came out and said what I was thinking a short while later.

If Del Mar hadn't accepted Twist's advances, then that would have qualified as sexual assault. And since there was no way Twist could have known that Del Mar would accept his advances, that makes those actions predatory, in my opinion. I would say the same thing if a straight man did the same to a woman, and vice versa.

Well I think those are unfair statements, because why is it that to be "acceptable gay passion" (a perplexing turn of words...) it must be slow, and romantic and starting with caresses and tender kisses? Why can't gay lovers be like any other lovers who DO feel lust and "attack" one another with passion? Crook has a point, if this were a guy "attacking" a girl with a kiss in any number of romantic movies, no one would be crying foul.

This is part of why I respected Brokeback is they showed intense passion and did so in an unflinching way. They didn't try to overly-romanticize gay sex as other films I've seen have done in an effort to make the audience "more comfortable" with what happens in the scene.

So in that way I actually thought it was more realistic and groundbreaking, because they didn't sugarcoat anything.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yes you are in fact wrong, way to jump to conclusions...

And way to just disregard my actual argument in favor of correcting an offhand remark from the opening sentence. See, it's annoying when someone just cuts out your actual post, isn't it?

 

[The Senator]

Well I think those are unfair statements, because why is it that to be "acceptable gay passion" (a perplexing turn of words...) it must be slow, and romantic and starting with caresses and tender kisses? Why can't gay lovers be like any other lovers who DO feel lust and "attack" one another with passion? Crook has a point, if this were a guy "attacking" a girl with a kiss in any number of romantic movies, no one would be crying foul.

This is part of why I respected Brokeback is they showed intense passion and did so in an unflinching way. They didn't try to overly-romanticize gay sex as other films I've seen have done in an effort to make the audience "more comfortable" with what happens in the scene.

So in that way I actually thought it was more realistic and groundbreaking, because they didn't sugarcoat anything.

I do understand the argument you're making. But I addressed that in my post-- the result of the act did not bother me. The initiation of the act did. Twist forced himself on Del Mar. Del Mar was sleeping, Twist was sleeping next to him, and, in a selfish act, Twist began 'romanticizing' Del Mar. Yes, it's a movie, but I could not help but think about what could have happened if Del Mar did not accept Twist's advances. Ultimately, his actions were predatory, regardless of whether Del Mar 'returned the favor' or not.

 

[deathfromabove]

Could have at least tried to use spoiler tags there rather than assuming everyone has seen this film... =P

ring ring

hello?

its the pot. is the kettle there?

 

[Keyser Soze]

I still think that characters like Gay Perry from "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang", or Omar Little from "The Wire", are arguably more "revolutionary", so far as homosexual characters go, than Ennis Del Mar can claim to be. Though that's taking nothing away from Ledger's performance, he did incredibly well in the film.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ agreed. the Apollo and Midnighter approach


Jamanspice I think you're grasping for straws that aren't there. The same type of scene occurs in probably one out of every two movies that have a romantic male and female couple. The scene must also be taken for exactly what it is, maybe it was supposed to be viewed that way, it's crafted to invoke a response. At the time the film was released I rememeber reading and hearing myself many positive opinions from gay men about that scene, that is was closer to their first experiences than most movies would care to suggest. How do you think two men that have never had a gay experience go about that introduction in the first place? Of course there'd be uncertainty and resistance in many cases.

 

[The Senator]

Jamanspice I think you're grasping for straws that aren't there. The same type of scene occurs in probably one out of every two movies that have a romantic male and female couple. The scene must also be taken for exactly what it is, maybe it was supposed to be viewed that way, it's crafted to invoke a response. At the time the film was released I rememeber reading and hearing myself many positive opinions from gay men about that scene, that is was closer to their first experiences than most movies would care to suggest.

I do take it for what it is. I understand what the scene entailed.

I'm just saying, my initial reaction was that Twist acted in a predatory manner. That was one of the few problems I had with the film. It made me fairly uncomfortable as a viewer in the theater. And, I'm not the only person who felt that way.

Every time I see it on TV, that same scene rubs me the same way. I feel as though it was an inaccurate portrayal of how two gay men initiate a relationship.

How do you think two men that have never had a gay experience go about that introduction in the first place? Of course there'd be uncertainty and resistance in many cases.

Easy. They sit down, look at the person they are in love with, and say "uh, I think I like you." Then whatever happens, happens. The wrong way to go about initiating a relationship is to reach over and start fondling the person sitting/ lying next to you. In real life, that's predatory. That's not to mention that Twist took advantage of Del Mar while he was drunk.

But, uh, because it resulted in a "happy ending" for both of them, I guess we can just ignore Twist's original motives and call it a day, because the same behavior happens in heterosexual love stories

I think that behavior is inexcusable, regardless of which type of couple is being portrayed on screen.

 

[Nepenthes]

Easy. They sit down, look at the person they are in love with, and say "uh, I think I like you." Then whatever happens, happens.

Ha ha. Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone who knew a little bit about people and relationships and attraction. You sound like 4th grade sex-ed teacher. Except in this case you're not talking to children.

Also you're still avoiding the fact that this predatory scene occurs in MANY (if not most) films that feature heterosexual romance. There's nothing exclusively gay about it. In fact you're almost saying that if gay sex is to be shown on film then it must be in some perfect, idealised form. Treated with kids gloves in other words. No, I'd much rather that it's treated with the same provoking and ambiguous, warts and all view as straight romance. That is the equal approach.

 

[The Senator]

Ha ha. Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone who knew a little bit about people and relationships and attraction. You sound like 4th grade sex-ed teacher. Except in this case you're not talking to children.

Funny, that's how I began all of my relationships. I didn't grope anyone in their sleep.

Also you're still avoiding the fact that this predatory scene occurs in MANY (if not most) films that feature heterosexual romance. There's nothing exclusively gay about it. In fact you're almost saying that if gay sex is to be shown on film then it must be in some perfect, idealised form. Treated with kids gloves in other words. No, I'd much rather that it's treated with the same provoking and ambiguous, warts and all view as straight romance. That is the equal approach.

I did not ignore that whatsoever. I don't think its acceptable in any circumstance, whether the couple in question is gay, straight, gender queer, trans, animals, aliens, etc. My personal opinion is, the scene was disturbing upon my first view, and its uncomfortable to watch in repeated viewings. The scene could have been done better. I don't think having Twist advance himself on to Del Mar like that helped ease the minds of those who believe homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of lustful, thoughtless sex fiends with little morality. And I know this because critics such as Gene Shalit came out and said the exact same things, religious nuts repeated it, and absolutely nothing changed in regards to how the country as a whole views homosexuality.

This was a groundbreaking film, but I don't think it helped shed a positive light on the queer community.

 

[Marx]

I see both sides of this. And while Twist did initiate things, I honestly don't see it any differently than any other love story. Men/women relationships in movies have been portrayed in the same exact way. (i.e. someone aggressively pursuing someone else.)

I do see your point though Jman and I could see how it comes off as predatory.

 

[The Senator]

I see both sides of this. And while Twist did initiate things, I honestly don't see it any differently than any other love story. Men/women relationships in movies have been portrayed in the same exact way. (i.e. someone aggressively pursuing someone else.)

I do see your point though Jman and I could see how it comes off as predatory.

I'm not saying it the scene didn't serve a purpose, nor am I saying that there was anything "wrong" with it, per se.

However, I do feel as if there was a better way to do it. And I don't think it eased how some people view homosexuals, especially the ignoramuses who did find this scene to be evidence of how 'evil' homosexual are.

In the context of the movie as it is, it works. But I still feel that it could have been done better. Del Mar could have at least been conscious when Twist made the first move... I find 'date rape' to be disgraceful all around...

 

[Crook]

Funny, that's how I began all of my relationships. I didn't grope anyone in their sleep.

Dude, I recommend it. Intensifies the beginning of the relationship.

I did not ignore that whatsoever. I don't think its acceptable in any circumstance, whether the couple in question is gay, straight, gender queer, trans, animals, aliens, etc. My personal opinion is, the scene was disturbing upon my first view, and its uncomfortable to watch in repeated viewings. The scene could have been done better.

It was an impulsive act. Even if it was forceful, I would not consider it predatory on that fact alone.

I don't think having Twist advance himself on to Del Mar like that helped ease the minds of those who believe homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of lustful, thoughtless sex fiends with little morality.

1) You're the one generalizing there.

2) If you just agreed that it was unacceptable whether the person is straight or not, then it's a bit backwards to then assume a statement solely focused on the homosexual crowd.

And I know this because critics such as Gene Shalit came out and said the exact same things, religious nuts repeated it, and absolutely nothing changed in regards to how the country as a whole views homosexuality.

This was a groundbreaking film, but I don't think it helped shed a positive light on the queer community.

That wasn't the point of the film. I didn't get any indication they were trying to sway anyone on the issue, but instead strive to tell a love story that just happened to feature 2 gay guys. What it sought out to do, was to make gay characters relevant in cinema, as something more than a throwaway stereotype or one that plays a little role in the overall film.

 

[Marx]

I'm not saying it the scene didn't serve a purpose, nor am I saying that there was anything "wrong" with it, per se.

However, I do feel as if there was a better way to do it. And I don't think it eased how some people view homosexuals, especially the ignoramuses who did find this scene to be evidence of how 'evil' homosexual are.

In the context of the movie as it is, it works. But I still feel that it could have been done better. Del Mar could have at least been conscious when Twist made the first move... I find 'date rape' to be disgraceful all around...

I completely understand what you're saying man, but the kinds of people you are referring to wouldn't be caught dead in a screening of this movie.

 

[The Senator]

Dude, I recommend it. Intensifies the beginning of the relationship.

Hmmm, I'll pass, thanks. I think it destroys the trust of the relationship to start off groping the other person in their sleep.

It was an impulsive act. Even if it was forceful, I would not consider it predatory on that fact alone.

So, it's acceptable because it's impulsive? I don't buy into that.

1) You're the one generalizing there.

How?

2) If you just agreed that it was unacceptable whether the person is straight or not, then it's a bit backwards to then assume a statement solely focused on the homosexual crowd.

I don't personally think it justified some views that homosexuals are a bunch of lustful, thoughtless sex fiends. Others do, though. And this scene fed into those narrow-minded views-- if folks wanted to interpret it that way. The fact that this scene was blasted on Fox News, and by several film critics, proves that this scene caused considerable controversy.

I tend to see arguments from all angles. I argue that this behavior would be unacceptable in all situations. Others, however, view homosexuality at a lower stature than they do heterosexuality. Naturally, a scene like this would cause controversy, whereas a scene involving a heterosexual couple would not be regarded as such. And if someone like myself felt as if this scene crossed a line, then someone who views homosexuality with utmost contempt would view it the same way.

That wasn't the point of the film. I didn't get any indication they were trying to sway anyone on the issue, but instead strive to tell a love story that just happened to feature 2 gay guys. What it sought out to do, was to make gay characters relevant in cinema, as something more than a throwaway stereotype or one that plays a little role in the overall film.

When you deal with a hot button issue such as homosexuality, you have to be careful with how you present it. Yes, this was just a gay love story at its heart-- but, it was a mainstream movie which presented homosexuality to every day Americans and moviegoers. Folks who disapproved of homosexuality could very well have been turned off by the concept altogether simply by that scene. It was the wrong way to initiate that relationship, in my opinion.

 

[The Senator]

I completely understand what you're saying man, but the kinds of people you are referring to wouldn't be caught dead in a screening of this movie.

Regardless of whether they see the movie or not, the fact that this scene exists gives them a reason to lash out against the gay community altogether. Hell, it happened. I'm sure most of these folks didn't actually see the film, but all that they needed to hear was that Jack Twist nearly raped Ennis Del Mar, and that gave them a reason to become the 'morality police.'

 

[Marx]

Regardless of whether they see the movie or not, the fact that this scene exists gives them a reason to lash out against the gay community altogether. Hell, it happened. I'm sure most of these folks didn't actually see the film, but all that they needed to hear was that Jack Twist nearly raped Ennis Del Mar, and that gave them a reason to become the 'morality police.'

The fact that this movie exists was enough for them to lash out man.

 

[The Senator]

The fact that this movie exists was enough for them to lash out man.

Yeah, but the 'tent scene' made it worse and gave them a fairly legitimate reason to go ape****.

 

[Marx]

Yeah, but the 'tent scene' made it worse and gave them a fairly legitimate reason to go ape****.

I think that's debatable man. These people don't think that they need "legitimate" reasons. The fact that a movie was made about a love story between two men was all they needed.

 

[Nepenthes]

Funny, that's how I began all of my relationships. I didn't grope anyone in their sleep.



I did not ignore that whatsoever. I don't think its acceptable in any circumstance, whether the couple in question is gay, straight, gender queer, trans, animals, aliens, etc. My personal opinion is, the scene was disturbing upon my first view, and its uncomfortable to watch in repeated viewings. The scene could have been done better. I don't think having Twist advance himself on to Del Mar like that helped ease the minds of those who believe homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of lustful, thoughtless sex fiends with little morality. And I know this because critics such as Gene Shalit came out and said the exact same things, religious nuts repeated it, and absolutely nothing changed in regards to how the country as a whole views homosexuality.

This was a groundbreaking film, but I don't think it helped shed a positive light on the queer community.

This is the vibe I get from you. No offense. I'm sure you're able to be happy in your way and your view of relationships and people, but also I think there's alot of experiance out there you're willfully ignoring.

It was a postive gay film because it treated gays (or bisexuals) in a truly honest and confrontational manner, like we're accustomed to seeing straight relationships. But you've singled out the behaviour in Brokeback simply because it's gay. You've said that because it's gay it must be treated in a more ideal or "moral" fashion, or else people might think that *shock* gay people are exactly like the rest of us. The fact is people are predatory in romance; so what? And if you really had paid attention to its critism and broader reception then you'd know there was far more controversy for Brokeback postioning itself as a gay film when in fact its characters were actually bisexual. Big difference, depending on who you talk to. The film apparently dealt with discrimination and alienation yet these were characters who were able to enjoy sex (and subsequently, marriages, families and lives) with other women. They were not gay. If they were it would have been a very different story and in someways the promotion and reception of the film in this regard was highly misrepresented. So stop pretending like you're watching out for homos on this point; you've ingored not one but TWO larger issues in favour of merey picking up something that doesn't fit with your personal values (promiscuity? lust? uninvited advances?) and saying that the film is somehow wrong or insidious because of it. Too bad the film was made for a far broader audience than yourself.